KB-2025-000232 - [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB)

The Claimant argued that everyone watching the YouTube video would have realised that the words complained of related to him because of their closeness in time to the reference in the accompanying chat to “Chris Substack saw you guys in the field last Saturday” (para 32 above). He said his Substack blog and his interest in the Nicola Bulley case were well known. Mr Ness described himself as “the only person on the planet who has thoroughly documented this since March 2023”. Accordingly, he said, it would have been widely understood that he was “Chris Substack”. On 31 January 2024, he had posted a blog that referred to his visit to St Michael’s on Wyre on 27 January 2024. The YouTube video bore the same title as a recent Channel 5 programme about the Nicola Bulley case and those choosing to view the video would have been fully aware of its subject matter and would have an interest in this topic. He was the only “Chris Substack” and the Defendant had failed to suggest anyone else whom this reference could have applied to. In terms of not having amended his pleading to rely on these matters, the Claimant emphasised that he was a litigant in person.

Mr Ness suggested that his prominence as “Chris Substack” could be tested by the Court Associate performing a Google search on this phrase. I declined to permit this, given: (a) it was incumbent on the Claimant to provide the evidence that he relied upon in advance of the hearing to give the Defendant an appropriate opportunity of responding to it; and in any event (b) the position was to be judged by reference to the date of publication (3 February 2024) rather than the present date (1 July 2025).

The Claimant relied upon the meaning set out in the Particulars of Claim in terms of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. He pointed to the reaction of a commentator in the chat, “Yes, that’s dodgy”. He spent some time taking me through documents which he said showed that the Defendant had been part of a deliberate campaign to smear and silence him and he argued that the Defendant’s purpose in this regard was relevant to the meaning of the words. He suggested the fact that the Defendant had raised a truth defence in her Defence Case Summary meant that she had accepted that the words were defamatory of him. He said that the words were clearly statements of fact.